nmm 22 4500ICPSR03689MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03689MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001
[electronic resource]
Paula L. Hannaford-Agor
,
Valerie P. Hans
,
Nicole L. Mott
,
G. Thomas Munsterman
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3689NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an
empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the
cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New
York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3)
Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of
Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were
responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to
all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet
contained a case data form requesting information about case
characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey
questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors
(Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range,
jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and
the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and
procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed
for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill,
likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions
regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on
the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing
the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury
rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the
jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was
unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested
responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations
including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict,
reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of
criminal justice in the community, and demographic information.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03689.v1
verdictsicpsrcourtsicpsrfelony offensesicpsrhung juriesicpsrjury deliberationsicpsrjury instructionsicpsrjury selectionicpsrmistrialsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD V. CourtsHannaford-Agor, Paula L.Hans, Valerie P.Mott, Nicole L.Munsterman, G. ThomasInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3689Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03689.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR20358MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR20358MiAaIMiAaI
Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Criminal Justice System in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon, 1999-2005
[electronic resource]
Nancy Thoennes
2009-07-31Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR20358NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The project goal was to collect data on approximately 100 Unified Family Court (UFC) cases at each of the three selected jurisdictions -- Maricopa County, Arizona, Deschutes County, Oregon, and Jackson County, Oregon -- that have developed systems to address the special needs of families with multiple court cases. The purpose of the study was to examine research questions related to: (1) dependency case processing and outcomes, (2) delinquency case processing and outcomes, (3) domestic relations/probate case processing and outcomes, and (4) criminal case processing and outcomes. The data used in this study were generated from a review of the court records of 602 families including 406 families served by the UFC as well as comparison groups of 196 non-UFC multi-case families. During the study's planning phase, an instrument was drafted for use in extracting this information. Data collectors were recruited from former UFC staff and current and former non-UFC court staff. All data collectors were trained by the principal investigator in the use of the data collection form. The vast majority of all data extraction required a manual review of paper files. Variables in this dataset are organized into the following categories: background variables, items from dependency/abuse and neglect filings, delinquency filings, domestic relations/probate filings, civil domestic violence/protection order filings, criminal domestic violence filings, criminal child abuse filings, other criminal filings, and variables from a summary across cases.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20358.v1
alcohol abuseicpsrdrug abuseicpsrfamily courtsicpsrfamily historiesicpsrfamily servicesicpsrfamily violenceicpsrmental healthicpsrmental health servicesicpsrrestraining ordersicpsrsexual abuseicpsrsexual behavioricpsrchild abuseicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtruancyicpsrviolent behavioricpsrchild custodyicpsrchild neglecticpsrchild welfareicpsrcourtsicpsrdelinquent behavioricpsrdomestic relationsicpsrdomestic violenceicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingThoennes, NancyInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)20358Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20358.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02687MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1999 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02687MiAaIMiAaI
Juror Discussions About Evidence, 1997-1998
[electronic resource][Arizona]
Paula L. Hannaford
,
Valerie P. Hans
,
G. Thomas Munsterman
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1999ICPSR2687NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
These data were collected in conjunction with an evaluation
of the Arizona court reform effective December 1, 1995, to permit
jurors in civil cases to discuss the evidence prior to
deliberations. The datasets consist of survey responses by judges,
jurors, attorneys, and litigants in all civil cases conducted in
Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, and Yavapai counties in Arizona between June
15, 1997, and January 31, 1998. Civil cases in the participating
courts were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions:
(1) jurors were told they could discuss the evidence prior to
deliberation according to Rule 39(f) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure, or (2) jurors were told they could not discuss the evidence
per the previous admonition. The datasets contain survey responses
under both conditions. Part 1, Case Characteristics Data, contains
information from two questionnaires completed by judges about the
lawsuit, the parties, the trial procedures, and the case outcome. The
data in Part 2, Juror Questionnaire Data, cover jurors' views
regarding the complexity of the case, the importance of witnesses and
testimonies, and attorneys' performances. The variables in Part 3,
Attorney Questionnaire Data, offer information on attorneys' opinions
of the jurors, the opposing counsel, and the verdict. Part 4, Litigant
Questionniare Data, consists of litigants' views regarding the jurors
and the verdict. Demographic data include respondents' gender, age,
race, income, and job status.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02687.v1
attorneysicpsrcase processingicpsrcourt casesicpsrcourtsicpsrjudgesicpsrjudicial decisionsicpsrjudicial processicpsrjuriesicpsrjury deliberationsicpsrjury instructionsicpsrtrial proceduresicpsrNACJD V. CourtsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHannaford, Paula L.Hans, Valerie P.Munsterman, G. ThomasInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2687Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02687.v1